Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 10 board approves provisional school‑safety officer job description amid dispute over SRO hiring
Summary
After weeks of uncertainty with the Oxford County Sheriff's office about a school resource officer, the RSU 10 school board approved a provisional school‑safety officer job description and tabled the question of pursuing an armed school resource officer until the sheriff's next meeting.
The Western Foothills Regional School Unit 10 school board debated whether to pursue a school resource officer (SRO) employed by the sheriff's office or to create a district‑employed, unarmed provisional school‑safety officer (SSO). The board approved the provisional SSO job description and earlier tabled the separate decision about whether to pursue an SRO until the Oxford County sheriff's office meets on Oct. 21.
Board discussion centered on differences between the two roles and the district's immediate need for coverage. Board members and staff said an SRO must be employed through a law‑enforcement agency and would be authorized to carry a firearm; a school safety officer would be employed by the district and, as discussed in the meeting, would not carry a firearm.
Board members reported that the Oxford County Sheriff's Office declined to post the SRO position while the incumbent, Percy, remained employed, and that the sheriff told district leaders he expected the county commissioners to authorize posting at their Oct. 21 meeting.
Those concerns left the district without guaranteed SRO coverage at the start of the school year, board members said. Supporters of creating a provisional SSO emphasized continuity with a trusted on‑site presence; supporters cited Percy's relationships with students and families and his familiarity with the schools. Opponents warned the board could create two paid roles if an SRO later is provided by the sheriff.
The board voted to table a separate motion to decide whether to seek an SRO until after the sheriff's Oct. 21 meeting. The motion to table recorded opposition by two board members; the minutes note several members voted in favor.
On final action the board approved the provisional school‑safety officer job description. The motion was made by Bonnie Sexton and seconded by Doug (surname not specified in the transcript). Jennifer (surname not specified) recorded an explicit dissent during the vote: "I am opposed," she said on the record. The job description passed.
Board members discussed implementation logistics. Administrators said insurance counsel had indicated the district's policy would provide coverage whether the district hired an SSO directly or used a substitute; board members said creating a job description does not itself create a funded position and that hiring would require subsequent board action.
The board did not hire anyone at the meeting. Administrators said a provisional arrangement was intended to allow a trusted person to provide coverage while the sheriff's office process continued; the district indicated it would bring hiring, funding and any further job‑description changes to personnel committee and to a future board vote.
The SSO/SRO discussion will return to the agenda after the sheriff's Oct. 21 meeting and as personnel committee refines language, administrators said.
